Recommended Posts

If there are "non-minor differences in characteristics that aren't just superficial" among races in some statistical sense, there is still even greater individual variation, and it is still essential to think of people and treat them as individuals.

None of this shakes the moral foundation of Objectivism as it applies to people with free will.

People without free will are insane or severely mentally retarded and are a rare special case.

People have natural incentives to do things like eating, drinking water, staying warm, and having sex. As long as we have free will, we can give reason the final word on what we do, although a lot of people fail to do this. If there are any natural incentives to be tribal, the same applies.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I would advocate a solution quite similar to the one your would likely advocate for and that is the freedom of association within the borders of any given country.

Then why do you go on about IQ differences and "moral implications"? If you simply will let it go and allow people to live according to their free will, there couldn't be any implication. People who are less smart than me, I don't treat them as morally inferior, it really doesn't matter, because sometimes they can do things even better than me, and still share similar moral values sometimes. I mean, I think you're wrong to think that homogenous society is the inevitable result of free association, I think heterogeneous society is what happens when you allow people to live according to their own values. But if that's only difference, I have no beef with your political position.

And what does your position on immigration have to do with race? If your issue is somebody entering the country illegally, that has nothing to do with race. That's an issue of law, that applies to all individuals, regardless of race.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

And what does your position on immigration have to do with race? If your issue is somebody entering the country illegally, that has nothing to do with race. That's an issue of law, that applies to all individuals, regardless of race.

I can answer that by approaching the scenario from the opposite side: If immigration isn't about race then we should just eliminate immigration caps and allow entry to anyone from any foreign country so long as they aren't murderers and rapists. If race and tribalism aren't an issue, then the domestic population becoming a political minority should have no bearing whatsoever on the fabric of society.

In my opinion advocacy and insistence on "legal immigration" is a means for conservatives to attempt to justify their white in-group preference without having to publicly endorse racist viewpoints. "We're all for legal immigration" they say, except they're really not when you look at public opinion surveys on immigration. The left of course sees right through this and calls them out on it every time. Why not change the law so everybody can come here so that there's no breach of law?

6 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Then why do you go on about IQ differences and "moral implications"? If you simply will let it go and allow people to live according to their free will, there couldn't be any implication.

As I stated before I advocate for a social system in harmony with human nature. Selfishness is a defining feature of our inherent nature and freedom is the logical means to account for it. That doesn't change the fact that we are also tribal, but given the selfish aspect of human nature I believe it's best to use culture to account for the tribal aspect assuming where talking about an objective system (I could be wrong here but that's my current view). Of course we haven't achieved the objective system yet so this means we have to work with the tools at our disposal (statism) to try to reach the objective system.

6 hours ago, Eiuol said:

People who are less smart than me, I don't treat them as morally inferior, it really doesn't matter, because sometimes they can do things even better than me, and still share similar moral values sometimes.

Same here, but we're not talking about individual interactions but a variety of potential distributions of more and less intelligent people in society. All things equal, if we increase the number off less intelligent people in society, society will become less free and less prosperous. The fact that more intelligent and less intelligent people can and do prosper (materially and emotionally) based on mutual interactions makes the preceding fact a very hard pill to swallow (emotionally) but that doesn't change the fact that reducing the average level of intelligence in society has adverse consequences. I personally don't mind living by the notion of noblesse obligue to a certain extent so long as our efforts are appreciated and we create a humane society in the process, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Based on human nature, I'm proposing natural in-group preference being a good first draft for drawing that line.

10 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

P﻿eople without free will ﻿are﻿ insane or severely﻿ mentally retarded and are a rare special case.

If I were a sophist by trade I'd discredit the entirety of your post based on this assertion alone. Free will is possible and it is arguably what makes us humans special but saying that people without free will are a rare occurrence or special case is contrary to the fact that humans are led by emotions not reason. Unless you take active steps to cultivate and maintain it you're essentially just chasing dopamine hits in the here and now. Taking an objective look around you, observing the continuous erosion of freedoms, how could you possibly claim that free will is the norm? The answer to the question is that this assertion wasn't based on an objective observation rather based on wishful thinking (emotional reasoning).

10 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

If there are "non-minor differences in characteristics that aren't just superficial" among races in some statistical sense, there is still even greater individual variation, and it is still essential to think of people and treat them as individuals.

That's comparing apples (individual variances) to oranges (group variances). As I stated in my reply to Eiuol's post, decreasing the average IQ in a society has consequences and that's without any consideration to even factoring in the tribal aspect of human nature. Yes we should treat people kindly and we should hold people accountable to a shared standard but what that standard is depends on the population in question. Average IQ, among other factors, impacts this standard. The more diverse the population the more the standard will have to change otherwise you won't be able to enforce it from a practical perspective. If you have a low IQ and low empathy population where certain forms of rape are culturally accepted you cannot legally enforce rape laws if this group of people makes up a significant portion of your population. A society cannot function properly with half of its citizenry incarcerated.

10 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

People have natural incentives to do things like eating, drinking water, staying warm, and having sex. As long as we have free will, we can give reason the final word on what we do, although a lot of people fail to do this. If there are any natural incentives to be tribal, the same applies. ﻿

Given our selfish nature and human nature in general you can only suppress natural urges to a certain extent and call it a success. We all know what happens when you outlaw sexual intercourse. The Catholic Church being a perfect example to illustrate this point. Or take a look at all the leftist male feminist supporters that treat women as less than human.

Ah, by now it's safe to just say you're a racist, plain and simple. I think all I can say now is I hope you interact with more varieties of people, because I don't think persuasive argument will change your mind anymore.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

As I ﻿stated before I advocate for a social system in harmony with human nature. Selfishness is a defining feature of our inherent nature and freedom is the logical means to account for it. That doesn't change the fact that we are also tribal, but given the selfish aspect of human nature I believe it's best to use culture to account for the tribal aspect assuming ﻿where talking about an objective system (I could be wrong here but that's my current view). Of course we haven't achieved the objective system yet so this means we have to work with the tools at our disposal (statism) to try to reach the objective system.﻿﻿

Of all the meta-ethical theories floating around in philosophy, there are usually 4 types: god, society, reason, or nature. Usually attacks on Rand's views as a naturalist come from one of the other templates. A Kantian, for example, might claim Rand fails to attach moral claims to pure reason, a conventionalist might claim public agreement lends to more altruism than Rand wants to allow.

You seem to want to challenge Rand's views from within the context of human nature, by pointing to some tribalistic aspects of human nature that we've ignored or failed to see. You mentioned a number of times bow, humans are led by emotions, humans are tribal, humans are inherently this or that.

But it's not as if merely asserting this or that constitutes a reason to believe something. It's fine if you want to map out the territory, well if humans were inherently interested in only members of their own race, then some sort of racist ethical prescription might follow, but your posts in here suffer from serious "argument from assertion" fallacies. To simply assert is not to establish. It's as if your claims become their own mantra "I see what you're saying but, humans are inherently tribalistic, QED." Is this the proper way to do philosophy? Is this intellectual honesty or ethical discussion? There are many challenges to a neo-Aristotelian conception of human nature, a Randian could challenge, eg., A Nietzschean account by challenging Nietzsche's views of human nature. But just making assertions and repeating them as a mantra is sophism, not philosophy.

Moreover, there are many conservative and communitarian critiques of liberty that point to a supposed inherent tribalism, and establish statism to arrange society in tribalistic patterns. MacIntyre, for example, argues against cosmopolitan liberalism from even a largely Aristotelian framework. But he does more than assert "humans are tribal" over and over. The right-Hegelians wished to establish a tribal society in the basis of racist scientific claims. In any event, your original post was about being an "open Objectivism" and revision of certain claims. It's not clear how, if one adopted the above views, one would be offering a divergence from, rather than new version of, Rand's views. If one is rejecting free will, the efficacy of reason, and open ended human sociality, and opposition to statism, this just comes across as petty opportunism or entryism, rather than being an honest conservative critic.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ah, by now it's safe to just say you're a racist, plain and simple. I think all I can say now is I hope you interact with more varieties of people, because I don't think persuasive argument will change your mind anymore.

So we're back to insults and name calling again. That's unfortunate, considering I thought we'd be able to move beyond that. So what's next? Do I get to look forward to you moderating my posts again because you disagree with the content of my speech? I certainly hope that won't be the case.

5 hours ago, 2046 said:

You seem to want to challenge Rand's views from within the context of human nature, by pointing to some tribalistic aspects of human nature that we've ignored or failed to see. You mentioned a number of times bow, humans are led by emotions, humans are tribal, humans are inherently this or that.

But it's not as if merely asserting this or that constitutes a reason to believe something. It's fine if you want to map out the territory, well if humans were inherently interested in only members of their own race, then some sort of racist ethical prescription might follow, but your posts in here suffer from serious "argument from assertion" fallacies.

I understand how you might interpret my position as an amalgamation of assertions fetched out of thin air but there's actually a little more substance based on the work of numerous social scientists and authors:

Us being led by emotion not reason: Jonathan Haidt, Robert Chialdini, Scott Adams, Daniel Kahneman.

Groupish / Tribal nature: Ryan Enos, Jonathan Haidt, et al.

My key point is that Ayn Rand's Objectivism does not account for human nature in a complete and integrated fashion. Yes we are mostly selfish creatures by nature that possess a faculty capable of reasoning (with certain limitations attached) but that doesn't mean we get to sweep the other aspects of human nature under the rug and call it a day.

Not sure why you're comparing me to other thinkers / critics of Objectivism. Either what I'm saying is correct at face value or it isn't. Why compare me to other thinkers as opposed to holding my argument to the objective standard of facts, reason and evidence?

5 hours ago, 2046 said:

If one is rejecting free will, the efficacy of reason, and open ended human sociality, and opposition to statism, this just comes across as petty opportunism or entryism, rather than being an honest conservative critic.

If what I wrote above doesn't fully address this concern I would add the following: Why is it the American experiment is failing? Ayn Rand proposed a hypothesis and a solution. Her solution has yet to materialize despite her best efforts. My assertion is that Ayn Rand's solution has yet to materialize because she did not account for certain factors as part of her analysis in properly defining the problem and therefor her solution to the problem was inadequate and ineffective. My train of thought is that if we properly account for the things she did not account for we should be able to formulate an effective solution to the problem we are facing today.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So we're back to insults and name calling again. That's unfortunate, considering I thought we'd be able to move beyond that.﻿

"Racist" describes your position, that is, advocating for specifically judging people based on their race rather than their individual characteristics, specifically for perceived threat and destabilization of your country. You were telling me about immigration policies you want in reference to race, you didn't mention anything about, say, only allowing people with a certain IQ to become citizens or immigrate (although wrong, not racist). Moreover, this isn't an implication of what you're saying, it is what you're saying, you seem to just want a nice word without the connotations. If you think it is offensive because it is inaccurate, and you don't want to judge people collectively according to their race, you should fix what you're saying about immigration. Otherwise, you should own up to the most accurate label you can, even if it is distasteful.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I understand how you might interpret my position as an amalgamation of assertions fetched out of thin air but there's actually a little more substance based﻿ on the work of numerous social scientists and authors:

Us being led by emotion not reason: Jonathan Haidt, Robert Chialdini, Scott Adams, Daniel Kahneman.﻿

Groupish / Tribal nature: Ryan Enos, Jonathan Haidt, et al.

Umm, I don't know about the others, but I've read a lot of Haidt, in fact I highly recommend particularly his The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom (2006) which I think is highly cogenial to a general Rand-friendly perspective. In any event, knowing this is what you're basing your "humans are inherently tribal" mantra off of, I'm 100% in agreement with Eiuol that you literally don't know what you're talking about. Haidt isn't claiming what you take him to be claiming. You seem to be reading into him a view that is not present.

It hardly follows from that fact that human flourishing is inherently social, or that human flourishing requires social relationships and connections with others (something that all of us are fully saying) that it is tribal in the specific sense meant here (eg., in Rand's PWNI or VOR, notably the social pathology she terms the "tribal lone wolf"), or that said tribalism is actually racial in form, or that statism is required to coordinate these forms of social connectivity. What's completely missing from your non sequitur based off Haidt is that social connections can be formed, reformed, modified, and diversive (owing itself to the fact that humans themselves are particular and diversive), and that a political standard is needed that will allow social life in its widest and most open-ended sense possible without structurally prejudicing one mode or form of social connectivity (such as pre-determined adherence to one static tribe or group) over another.

And the reason I bring up other thinkers like Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, and John Gray is that they make your point way better than you do.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Most people who are led by emotions not reason still have free will; they just don't make proper use of it.

If a low IQ, low empathy person thinks rape is OK, it is still very wrong. If there are so many such people that it becomes impossible to enforce laws against rape, we have a very serious problem, and a lot of bad things will happen. It might not be possible to have a viable society in that case, especially if they think other aggressions are OK too.

I understand there are some pathological circles in which a guy gains prestige and status by raping. I'm sure this is more cultural than anything else. Such a person still has the power to think things through and realize it's wrong. Such people do not dominate society. Fortunately men with similar attitudes and practices who have achieved positions of power are now being weeded out. Is any data available on the IQ's of such men? Some of them have been very economically productive, but weeding them out does not seem to be endangering our society.

How many people are there anywhere who consider rape to be OK?

Letting reason have the final say in what we do does not mean abstaining from sexual intercourse. It does not mean treating any sex or race as less than human. It probably does not even mean totally abstaining from fast food. It certainly does not mean forcing anyone else to do any of these things.

The reason Ay﻿n Rand's solution has yet to materiali﻿ze is that it can only do so when a lot of people make fundamental changes to their thinking, and that takes a lot of time.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If a low IQ, low empathy person thinks rape is OK, it is still very wrong.

From the perspective of someone that has normal or above average levels of empathy yes. For someone with low IQ and low empathy they're just following what they understand to be their immediate self interest.

On 11/18/2018 at 10:07 AM, Doug Morris said:

If there are so many such people that it becomes impossible to enforce laws against rape, we have a very serious problem, and a lot of bad things will happen. It might not be possible to have a viable society in that case, especially if they think other aggressions are OK too.

Agreed. I understand that we, all things being equal, like to view people in terms of their best potential but unless we have in place the means necessary to draw out said potential we're just making things worse as it relates to immigration. I don't blame immigrants for sticking to their own value systems considering today's dominant value system in the West consists of the xenophilia and self-hatred of the domestic population. There's no incentive to change even if said change were theoretically possible.

On 11/18/2018 at 10:07 AM, Doug Morris said:

I understand there are some pathological circles in which a guy gains prestige and status by raping. I'm sure this is more cultural than anything else. Such a person still has the power to think things through and realize it's wrong. Such people do not dominate society.

Depends on the society and how the cultural incentive structure is defined for that society. If there's no incentive to think about something the majority of people will likely not think about it. If you have a low empathy population whose only happiness in life comes from the times they are able to spread their misery onto those weaker than themselves I fail to see how things can and will change. The type of thinking we're talking about requires a level of high intelligence, a sense of empathy, and a desire to make the world better place. And then there's the hurdle of having to persuade enough people to change their views to support and realize your belief system which requires a certain level of intelligence and empathy on their part.

On 11/18/2018 at 10:07 AM, Doug Morris said:

Fortunately men with similar attitudes and practices who have achieved positions of power are now being weeded out. Is any data available on the IQ's of such men? Some of them have been very economically productive, but weeding them out does not seem to be endangering our society.

Depends on which country we're talking about. If you're the head of anything, be it a company, tribe, or country, that requires at least a certain level of intelligence and understanding of human nature (emotional intelligence). I'm not aware of any IQ studies for this specific segment though. As far as how they treat others, that will likely depend on their ability/willingness to emphasize with others so a high IQ doesn't guarantee empathy, it just enhances one's ability to perceive a broader range of moral implications based upon one's sense of empathy.

On 11/18/2018 at 10:07 AM, Doug Morris said:

How many people are there anywhere who consider rape to be OK?

Again this depends on what area of the world we're looking at. I don't think that all Muslims are a-ok with rape, but unless the Muslim community as a whole acts against rape by severely punishing, ostracizing or shunning offending individuals it effectively makes no difference from an incentive standpoint and then you've got yourself a genuine rape culture.

On 11/18/2018 at 10:07 AM, Doug Morris said:

Letting reason have the final say in what we do does not mean abstaining from sexual intercourse.

My point here was that you have to try to account for all aspects of human nature not just the ones you feel strongly about. Saying you should just suppress your sexual desires, suppress your selfish nature, suppress your tribal urges is not the way to go if you value positive outcomes.

On 11/18/2018 at 10:07 AM, Doug Morris said:

It does not mean treating any sex or race as less than human.

This is a tricky one, especially if you have a purely individualist and universalist mindset. It's easier to just say that we're all humans and to stop looking for the truth once you've reached this criteria. However there are differences between the genders and the races. It's important to actually get it right as not to dwell too much on the side of biological determinism and equally not to grant liberties that are beyond someone's capability to handle. It's a fine line but saying we're all equal and calling it a day is objectively incorrect. Yes society works best when we're all held to the same standard, but there are certain biological differences that we have to account for unless we want to suffer the consequences. The inability of the men in the West to properly understand and account for female human nature led to the cultural embrace of feminism which as a result has made both men and women miserable. From a purely Darwinian perspective you could view the wave of Muslim men migrating into Europe as a self-correcting mechanism of nature in response to Western man's inability to correctly handle his women.

On 11/18/2018 at 10:07 AM, Doug Morris said:

The reason Ay﻿n Rand's solution has yet to materiali﻿ze is that it can only do so when a lot of people make fundamental changes to their thinking, and that takes a lot of time.

Ayn Rand never actively embraced the field of study that is influence and persuasion. Unlike those on the left she never used human irrationality to her advantage for obvious reasons. The left however used it to its full advantage precisely because their ideology was so utopian and could not be propagated using reason and evidence so they became the masters of manipulation. This is one of the greatest lessons that can be learned from Donald Trump and that is that both parties can play this game and win. The only way that people will make a fundamental change to their way of thinking is if there's a recognizable incentive to do so. However we're not just at the mercy of environmental factors; we can affect the environment using objective means of persuasion that recognize human nature for what it is not what we want it to be. Donal Trump is living proof this can work.

Edited November 21 by Azrael Rand

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Umm, I don't know about the others, but I've read a lot of Haidt, in fact I highly recommend particularly his The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom (2006) which I think is highly cogenial to a general Rand-friendly perspective.

Good to know I'm not the only Objectivist that stumbled across Jonathan Haidt. Agree with you 100% that his work is Objectivst friendly and would argue its a natural transition point from where Ayn Rand left off.

On 11/17/2018 at 11:52 PM, 2046 said:

In any event, knowing this is what you're basing your "humans are inherently tribal" mantra off of, I'm 100% in agreement with Eiuol that you literally don't know what you're talking about. Haidt isn't claiming what you take him to be claiming. You seem to be reading into him a view that is not present. ﻿

Should have been more clear why I referenced Haidt. I referenced him under tribalism based on the case he lays out in his book The Righteous Mind as it related to our "groupish" or "hivish" nature.

On 11/17/2018 at 11:52 PM, 2046 said:

It hardly follows from that fact that human flourishing is inherently social, or that human flourishing requires social relationships and connections with others (something that all of us are fully saying) that it is tribal in the specific sense meant here (eg., in Rand's PWNI or VOR, notably the social pathology she terms the "tribal lone wolf"), or that said tribalism is actually racial in form

You're correct in that Jonathan Haidt does not focus on race as it pertains to or social nature. This is where the other author I listed, Ryan Enos, comes in. Like Haidt he leans to the left (although Haidt is now more of a centrist) and doesn't shy away from objective truths just because they conflict with his ideological world view. Enos discussed the topic of what one might call subconscious racism, specifically how it interacts with geographic proximity and the demographic composition of communities and how these variables impact social cohesiveness, social institutions, and civic engagement. His book confirms what has become evident which is that diversity plus proximity equals conflict. He concludes that this will be the case so long as ethnic groups continue to live in their own geographic enclaves. To combat the natural tendency for people to live amongst people that look and behave like themselves he hints at the need for pragmatic solutions from enlightened central planners (obviously not in support of this).

I do fully recommend his book The Space Between Us as it is a good transition from Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind.

or that statism is required to coordinate these forms of social connectivity.

Not a big fan of state intervention into private affairs as this actually runs counter to human nature in a lot of cases. Coercion and true understanding / objective recognition of reality usually don't go hand in hand. I would only advocate state involvement as it relates to immigration policy.

Here's why: It is the state's responsibility to guarantee objective freedoms in the form of clearly delineated and understandable rights. Freedoms and rights however cannot exist in a practical sense without certain prerequisite requirements being met. A peaceful society being is one such requirement. Ethnic diversity all things being equal contributes negatively to the establishing and preservation of a peaceful society based on our tribal nature alone. Compounding this fact are differences in superficial and non-superficial characteristics based on race. We all like to say that all that counts is what's in someone's heart, content of character, but how often does a 10 settle down with a 1. Superficial criteria matter even if we'd like to pretend that they don't. Just look at the size of the make-up industry.

If we value objectively superior outcomes then we must consider all variables, not just the ones we're comfortable with. Racial or cultural diversity is not a strength rather it's a liability. That's not to say there shouldn't be any cultural exchanges with other peoples', after all some people are born with a tendency to favor diversity over security (r vs K selection/epigenetics) however we need to be sure to strike an objective balance and that includes state involvement in the domain of immigration to preserve our rights and freedoms.

I don't think anyone in the Objectivist movement would object to the state being involved in military matters, as national security is a widely recognized precondition for maintaining our freedoms, but the issue of ethnic homogeneity is considered controversial. Why is that? My theory is that it is based upon what I would call racial/collectivist altruism: The wealthiest race, whites, has a positive moral obligation to the less wealthier races. This idea has become the moral mission for all white Western nations. It is the one idea that no white person is allowed to question. It is the one thing that unites both conservatives and liberals alike. And based on the workings of human nature is what will be our undoing if we don't find a way to self-correct.

Edited November 22 by Azrael Rand

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

"Racist" describes your position, that is, advocating for specifically judging people based on their race rather than their individual characteristics, specifically for perceived threat and destabilization of your country. You were telling me about immigration policies you want in reference to race, you didn't mention anything about, say, only allowing people with a certain IQ to become citizens or immigrate (although wrong, not racist). Moreover, this isn't an implication of what you're saying, it is what you're saying, you seem to just want a nice word without the connotations. If you think it is offensive because it is inaccurate, and you don't want to judge people collectively according to their race, you should fix what you're saying about immigration. Otherwise, you should own up to the most accurate label you can, even if it is distasteful.

So you're calling my motive into question rather than trying to disprove/address my actual arguments...

While it would be irrational to state that we aren't emotionally motivated how is it that you know for a fact what my motivations are? Instead of accusing me of something you don't know is true why not bring the same vigor to discrediting the actual arguments I'm posting.

Using the word "racist" is an attempt to either silence the debate by shaming someone or trying to get your opponent to switch from offense to defense which helps if you've either run out of arguments on your end or just don't want to put in the effort to actually debate.

It appears to me that if you're not going to moderate my posts that your next course of action is to use entry-level sophistry. I expected better of someone that for all intents and purposes appears to be an accomplished Objectivist professional.

Note that it is important to engage in these types of debates precisely because we are emotionally motivated by nature. Withdrawing from the argument is withdrawing from the truth, and withdrawing from the truth is withdrawing from Objectivism.

I didn't mention motivation. I've described your position. You didn't actually say I described your position incorrectly, you just seem to not like the word. I spent pages addressing your actual arguments, I just have near zero motivation to persuade someone who thinks that racism is good that it is in fact bad. I see it on a level of explaining why rape is bad. It's not worth it.

It's unfortunate that some people use the word racist merely for shaming, but here I'm using it to describe your actual position. 2046 said so as well, but said your argument even failed to be arguments for racism. They are mostly assertions, not arguments.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'd say you roughly addressed a quarter of my points and ignored the rest whereas I addressed virtually all of your arguments point by point.

22 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I spent pages addressing your actual arguments, I just have near zero motivation to persuade someone who thinks that racism is good that it is in fact bad.﻿ I see it﻿ on a level of explaining why rape is bad. It's not worth it.

More sophistry huh, a false equivalency this time around...

The two aren't even close. Rape isn't in anyone's rational-self interest whereas maintaining a cohesive society is a pre-condition for individual rights and limited government. There are tribal aspects to human nature whether you like it or not. I have provided more than one resource for this as part of this discussion. I agree that things would be so much simpler if we could just ignore the issue of race and live in a colorblind society, but that isn't the lesson objective reality is imparting on us.

I understand where you're coming from. I understand that you most likely don't support the type of illegal immigration we are seeing in the West today and that you approach the issue from a perspective that looks at the ideal state society out to be organized under. But even here you're not accounting for all of human nature. You're selectively accepting the aspects you personally identify with and ignoring the ones you dislike. While understandable, this is not an objective stance to take.

As far as the term racism is concerned, there isn't even agreement in the US what the term means. It means different things to different people. To the individualist it means not judging someone solely by the content of character, to the collectivist it means not acting as you ought to based on your race, and to the anti-white activist it means not acknowledging white privilege. The only thing all of these applications of the word have in common is that it is used as a means to demonize your opponent.

Link to post

Share on other sites

I agree with the sentiment and this is the philosophy I apply in my personal life; a person is obviously more than just a member of their tribe. However from a group-level perspective there are limitations to applying this philosophy. Namely what is re-affirmed in Enos work. I'm not opposed to having any non-whites living in a white nation however I also realize that based on human nature there is a limit to how much racial diversity a society can deal with without adverse consequences. It goes back to the r vs K thing. rs value diversity whereas K value safety. I my opinion an objectively organized society should provide a means for both rs and Ks to live happy and productive lives; this in my opinion requires an objective balance that still unites the rs and Ks under a common cultural identity. Logically extending the colorblind society concept to its logical end could result in ethnic population replacement of the majority group and this leads to adverse consequences as I've discussed in this thread.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I agree with the sen﻿timent and this is the philosophy I apply in my personal life﻿

You clearly don't even agree with the sentiment, you haven't spent any time saying what you agree with. You're not getting any points for saying you agree with the sentiment, but then none of your beliefs at all coincide with individualism or individual rights. The more you say, the deeper the hole you dig.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You clearly don't even agree with the sentiment, you haven't spent any time saying what you agree with. You're not getting any points for saying you agree with the sentiment, but then none of your beliefs at all coincide with individualism or individual rights. The more you say, the deeper the hole you dig.

You believe in individual rights as an end unto themselves (traditional Objectivism), whereas I consider them an important component and a piece of the puzzle to a greater whole. I don't expect this to change anytime soon for either of us. We have a different understanding of human nature and those differences lead us to our different worldviews. I do understand where you're coming from having held our convictions in the past and I don't think you'll change your view until you find yourself in a situation where your existing worldview no longer provides acceptable answers to the questions you ask yourself. Having been there myself, by no means do I hold your misguidedness against you. I for one have enjoyed our conversations thoroughly.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That's not accurate actually, the view is that individual rights are a necessity to a healthy and functioning society, not an end in itself. I mean, if you're talking about individual rights and then also other things to enhance that, sure. But you can't have individual rights if you propose specifically racist policies (judging people collectively according to their race). I mean, individual rights aren't some appeal to a platonic good, the whole idea is that it does in fact work better on a practical level and a moral level. If you accept individual rights as theoretically good, but in practice see them as a failure, you are actually rejecting the theory in the first place.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It might make more sense if I define what I mean with individual rights so that we're both on the same age in terms of definitions/terminology: I reject the notion of human rights or universal rights and instead support the view of individual liberties in a context of liberties afforded to and enforced by the members of a given society. To assert that members of a different state are entitled to the rights and protections offered by another state, while idealistic, is misguided and not aligned with the realities of human nature.

There's nothing more I can say to convince you that I haven't already said before in this thread. Human cognition is based around an emotional motive; that is we do not normally embrace facts unless they align with our emotional self-interest. You know this just as much if not more so than I do. The ideas and facts that I've presented here do not align with your world view and are therefore dismissed as irrelevant. If you think you've already discovered the truth and aren't actively seeking it out then you're not likely to accept facts that are contrary to your core belief system. Simple as that.

At the end of the day we can talk about our ideal vision of society all we want but it doesn't change the fact that we aren't even close to living in an environment where that type of discussion is actually relevant considering current events. There was a time in American history when the discussion was relevant, when America was presented with the choice of being a free society based around individual liberties or tribal warfare. America chose tribalism when it enacted protections and incentives based around race in the form of repealing the freedom of association and instituting programs such as affirmative action. Ever since then whites have deluded themselves into thinking that they were still living in a free society when in actuality we had already entered the age of tribal warfare. The conflict we were warned about by Ayn Rand is already well underway and whites are the only group that isn't actively participating in this conflict as an organized group and are therefore loosing by default. The culture has turned anti-white for a reason. Unless things change and whites start participating in the game like all the other groups they will be the first to exit the contest. The demographic replacement of whites has already reached a critical point.

Edited November 29 by Azrael Rand

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Also, Ayn Rand is gaining more and more popularity in India over time (the number of people who join this forum that come from India should attest to that fact). This is completely random: there's no organization representing or promoting Objectivism in India.

I failed to mention: this is because of the spread of the English language in India. Perhaps, lack of interest in capitalism doesn't need to have any deep meaning. The reason could be something as unphilosophical as people learning English.

On 11/14/2018 at 8:38 PM, Azrael Rand said:

I do know that there are a lot of Indians working in tech which is positively correlated with IQ and I do know that people from India appear to do very well for themselves when they come to the US. You don't hear about corporations offshoring IT jobs to Africa but you do hear about them offshoring them to India.

Regarding your analysis of Lynn and Vanhanen, I agree with what Eiuol previously said: There are good scientists and bad scientists. There are likely good and bad scientists on both sides of the argument. Proving the existence of one or more bad scientists doesn't automatically disprove an argument itself. Your reasoning is persuasively correct but not necessarily factually correct.

How do you get data about the IQs of different parts/nations of the world (used to build up your argument), if not from Lynn and Vanhanen.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I failed to mention: this is because of the spread of the English language in India. Perhaps, lack of interest in capitalism doesn't need to have any deep meaning. The reason could be something as unphilosophical as people learning English.

I think its a multi-faceted issue in my opinion and your idea sounds reasonable at face value. Most literature about individual liberty is likely written in the English language so it makes sense for that to be a factor.

I'd say the same about this as about my response above. What you're saying makes good sense but I don't see how you can conclusively exclude IQ altogether. Although I do believe that if we attached weights to the different causes, the cause you listed likely has a higher weight than IQ. Then again, what explains differences in decision making and public policy between India and African nations? Collective IQ differences are likely to be a factor along with cultural differences and other considerations.

On 12/10/2018 at 7:16 PM, human_murda said:

How do you get data about the IQs of different parts/nations of the world (used to build up your argument), if not from Lynn and Vanhanen.

The thing about quoting data, and I've listed data before, is that it doesn't do anything to change the way most people think; at least those that have already made up their mind about an issue and aren't really open to entertaining new information. I'm not getting that vibe from you tough but there are some people that took part in this discussion that fall into this category. Not knocking anyone in particular, it's just the way the cognitive process works for us humans. Unless you have an open mind, facts are likely not going to persuade you. We are mostly selfish by nature and we're not about to let facts get in the way of our chosen belief system we're emotionally invested in. Simple as that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Collective IQ differences are likely to be a factor along with cultural differences and other considerations.

I mean, you haven't even explained how IQ differences will matter in the first place. You make wide claims that IQ would be necessary to understand capitalism and things like that, without a reason to think this is so.

And then you haven't even answered what you would do about black people in the US, mixed race people, and how you would even go about deciding if somebody truly is a certain race. You spoke about immigration, but completely dodged any questions about what to do about people who are already citizens. We don't even need to get into what the cause of IQ differences is, because the differences exist whatever the case. It seems to me you prefer to double down on identitarian politics ("all the other races are doing it!") and abandon liberty.